1. The petitioner is a firm which is carrying on business in untanned hides and skins and which took out a licence under section 5 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. It objects to certain notices issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Cuddapah, directing it to produce accounts for the purpose of assessing the tax leviable under rule 16(2)(ii) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939. It is contended in the first instance on its behalf that the rules make a distinction between licensed and unlicensed dealers and that the classification embodied in sections 5 and 6-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act is unreasonable and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. A similar contention was negatived by the Bench of this Court in Syed Mohammed & Co. v. State of Andhra (1956 7 S.T.C. 465; 1956 A.L.T. 706). The Divisional Bench followed the decision reported in State of Madras v. K. H. Chambers Ltd. : AIR1955Mad314 , and held that the classification was valid and did not offend Article 14 of the Constitution. This contention must therefore fail.
2. The next contention is that the transactions are saved by Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution and are immune from tax. It is not denied that the sales were effected for the purpose of exporting the goods outside the State. But, it is argued that the purchase on the price of which the tax is leviable is so integrated with the transaction of exportation that it should be considered to be an act done in the course of export and as such within the language of Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution. This contention also was rejected by the Full Bench in State of Madras v. K. H. Chambers : AIR1955Mad314 , and that view was followed by a Bench of this Court of which I was a member in State of Andhra v. M. C. Sannappa (1956 7 S.T.C. 757; 1956 2 An. W.R. 1036; 1956 A.L.T. 920). This contention also therefore cannot be accepted. It is also urged that some of the transactions of the petitioner are by sale to agents of non-residents for export and such agents are dealers who are liable to assessment and that the petitioner should not be assessed in respect of those transactions. Under the Rule, when goods are exported outside the State, the tax is to be levied 'from the dealer who was the last dealer not exempt from taxation under section 3(3)'. It is asserted in the counter-affidavit that 'the petitioners in this case were the persons who were assessable to tax under section 3(1) in respect of exports made by dealers to whom they sold the untanned hides and skins which dealers did not have an assessable turnover under section 3(3) in view of the fact that they are not licensees and also that there was no sale in their hands which would be assessed in the State in view of their being unlicensed.' This statement of the Commercial Tax Officer in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit is not challenged before me. This submission, too, cannot be accepted.
3. Thus there is no substance in this writ petition. It must therefore fail and is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100.